Re: ---

[Bobrow.pa@Xerox.ARPA]

   The naive user ought not to have to worry about the implementation. 
   He ought merely to be able to state that an identifier should be 
   protected.  An implementation with packages is sufficient 
   (and can be easily understood by the user if needed).

 My experience with the package system leads me to be very skeptical of
a
 solution that uses the package system merely as an implementation.  The
 package system tends to make itself rather visible.  For example: one
 cannot write a macro that controls how symbols in the macro body are
 interned, since the symbols are already interned before the macro is
 expanded.  The macro could reintern those symbols, but the "damage"
 would have already been done.  Does what you have in mind avoid such
 problems?

Could you be more specific about the damage that has been done?  How
does this get you in trouble?  If what you are doing is hiding a symbol,
how does the previously interned wider scope symbol interfere?